[black mamba1]

Before I would make sweeping statements I would like to hear the entire speech in its entire context. The fact of the matter is that for decades there have been billions of dollars wasted in the military on pork projects disguised as "military needs" when in fact unde 8 yrs of Bush the Army went into Iraq under armed and under prepared, while we spend billions on questionable systems for payback to powerful Senators.

So, we justify spending hundreds of billions to keep the world from "catching up"? There is no end to that argument. if that is the justification, why not spend say...$2 trillion on advanced weapons to make sure we stay ahead of the Chines and Russians...no, make that $4 trillion. Where does it end? What is your gage?

There is no need to weaponize space. In fact it was against several treaties as far back as the early 70's.

We are spending about $4.4 billion for each Seawolf sub, although we are only going to make 3 of them. It was designed to counter a cold war threat that no longer exists, which is why we stopped construction at 3 (where is the thread on Bush stopping Navys Seawolf program!). The Bush administration cancelled the next attack class of subs, the Virginia class, citing it not being needed as well. But there are several more cold war era defense programs (like a nuclear shield, every single engineer in this forum knows that will never work) that cost hundreds of billions that also need to be cut, but cannot due to powerful Senators. There is NO NEED for the Seawolf, it is not advanced enough and we dont have enough of them to make a difference, and too advanced for any competitor to deal with.

Just b/c a program is cancelled does not mean it cannot be resurrected at a later date if it is needed. But like the B1 Bomber that Reagan resurrected, it really has no special task. It is greatly outperformed by the B2, and can be shot down just like the B-52. Carter cancelled siting stealth technology on the horizon, Reagan brought it back...its neat looking...but has given us no real advantage. It was a waste of money.

The problem of what you guys "think" experience does, is that you assume people learn from it, when in fact experience in Washington has not proved that anyone has learned anything about anything. Why do we still have a WW2 policy of fighting on two major fronts? Just b/c we had to do that 70 yrs ago does not mean we will have to do that again...if so, why not 3 enemies? or 4 enemies all at once? Experience says we had to fight the Japs (formal military) and the Krouts (formal military) at the same time. Modern history says we will fight more guerella type battles w/ small non uniformed insurgents using small very powerful weapons, like road side bombs. Are we prepared and spending billions to counter that? Over half of our deaths in Iraq are from road side bombs set off by some 12 yr old kid w/ a cell phone. A $2 trillion space missile will not prevent that.

Bush 1 and Bush 2 authorized the closing of numerous military bases and the downsizing of the Army to be as Rumsfeld says, leaner and meaner. All that has succeeded in doing is overstretching our military and units being deployed 3 and 4 times. Rumsfeld was the most experienced Sec Def we have ever had. And look at the quagmire (even the generals disagree with his tactics) he has created. Also, I am sure you all started a web on the Bush boys criticizing that disarming decision to close over 25% of our army and air force bases too....

Naa....I am sure you did not.